AIM: Risk assessment is increasingly important in periodontology. The aim of this article was to propose a new objective method (UniFe) in order to simplify the risk assessment procedures. UniFe was compared with a computer-based risk assessment tool (PAT(R)). METHODS: Risk scores for both UniFe and PAT(R) were calculated for 107 patients, randomly selected among patients seeking care at a specialist periodontal clinic. For UniFe risk calculation, the ''parameter scores'' assigned to smoking status, diabetic status, number of sites with probing depth 5 mm, bleeding on probing score (BoP) and bone loss/age, were added and the sum was referred to a ''risk score'', ranging from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). PAT(R) generated a risk score on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk). RESULTS: The mean UniFe and PAT(R) risk scores were 4.5+/-0.9 and 4.6+/-0.7, respectively. Cohen k-statistics amounted to 0.7, suggesting a good agreement between methods. Difference in risk score between methods was significantly explained by the parameter scores of BoP and bone loss/age (adjusted R2=0.378). CONCLUSION: The comparison between UniFe and PAT(R) demonstrated a good level of agreement between methods in a randomly selected population referred to a periodontal clinic.
Comparison between Two Methods for Periodontal Risk Assessment.
TROMBELLI, Leonardo;FARINA, Roberto;FERRARI, Simona;PASETTI, Paolo;CALURA, Giorgio
2009
Abstract
AIM: Risk assessment is increasingly important in periodontology. The aim of this article was to propose a new objective method (UniFe) in order to simplify the risk assessment procedures. UniFe was compared with a computer-based risk assessment tool (PAT(R)). METHODS: Risk scores for both UniFe and PAT(R) were calculated for 107 patients, randomly selected among patients seeking care at a specialist periodontal clinic. For UniFe risk calculation, the ''parameter scores'' assigned to smoking status, diabetic status, number of sites with probing depth 5 mm, bleeding on probing score (BoP) and bone loss/age, were added and the sum was referred to a ''risk score'', ranging from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). PAT(R) generated a risk score on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk). RESULTS: The mean UniFe and PAT(R) risk scores were 4.5+/-0.9 and 4.6+/-0.7, respectively. Cohen k-statistics amounted to 0.7, suggesting a good agreement between methods. Difference in risk score between methods was significantly explained by the parameter scores of BoP and bone loss/age (adjusted R2=0.378). CONCLUSION: The comparison between UniFe and PAT(R) demonstrated a good level of agreement between methods in a randomly selected population referred to a periodontal clinic.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
